Breaking down the question
The command word is comment, calling for an analytical discussion rather than a bare list. The focus is the sociological impact of globalization on people working in the informal sector — so the answer must trace how the opening of the economy has reshaped the lives, work and social relations of those in unorganised, unprotected employment.
Two terms anchor the question. The informal sector covers the vast body of workers outside regulated, protected employment — casual labourers, street vendors, home-based workers, domestic help and the self-employed — who lack written contracts, job security and social protection. Globalization denotes the intensified flow of capital, goods and competitive pressure that followed liberalisation. The task is to connect the two and to read the impact sociologically, not merely economically.
At 30 marks the candidate should organise the impact into clear themes, register both the opportunities and the vulnerabilities, and comment critically on the balance between them. A strong answer keeps the working person, not the aggregate economy, at the centre.
How to approach it
Open by defining the informal sector and noting its enormous share of the Indian workforce, then state that globalization has deepened rather than dissolved informality. This sets the analytical stage.
Then develop the impact through distinct sociological themes — the informalisation and casualisation of work, heightened insecurity and the erosion of social security, the feminisation of informal labour, migration and the loosening of community ties, and the widening of inequality. Within each, name the mechanism and illustrate it with the Indian experience. Balance the picture by acknowledging new market access, mobile connectivity and niche opportunities.
Close with a measured comment: globalization has integrated informal workers into wider circuits of exchange while leaving them exposed and unprotected, so the sociological verdict is one of connection without security. Draw on Breman and Standing to sharpen the argument.
Model answer
The informal or unorganised sector — casual wage labourers, street vendors, home-based and domestic workers, small self-employed producers — accounts for the overwhelming majority of India's workforce, and it is precisely these workers, outside the protection of contracts and labour law, whose lives globalization has most profoundly reshaped. The sociological impact has been double-edged: greater integration into wider markets on the one hand, and intensified insecurity and vulnerability on the other.
The most significant impact is the informalisation and casualisation of labour itself. Under competitive pressure, firms in the organised sector have sought to cut costs and retain flexibility by outsourcing, subcontracting and relying on contract and casual workers rather than permanent employees. The result, documented sharply by Jan Breman, is that informality has grown even within the formal economy: workers are drawn into global production chains as home-based or contract labour without acquiring the security of regular employment. Globalization has thus not shrunk the informal sector but expanded and entrenched it.
A second and closely related impact is rising insecurity and the erosion of social protection. Informal workers bear the volatility of a globally connected economy — fluctuating demand, sudden loss of orders, price competition from imports — without unemployment benefit, provident fund, pension or health cover. Guy Standing's notion of the precariat captures this condition of chronic insecurity, in which work is available but stability is not. The absence of a social safety net converts every downturn into a livelihood crisis for the household.
A third theme is the feminisation of informal work. Globalized production, especially in garments, food processing and export manufacture, has drawn large numbers of women into home-based and piece-rate employment. This has given some women independent earnings and a foothold in the economy, but typically on the most disadvantaged terms — low and irregular pay, no bargaining power, the double burden of paid work and domestic labour, and exposure to exploitation. The impact on gender relations is therefore ambiguous: partial empowerment alongside intensified exploitation.
Globalization has also accelerated migration and reworked social bonds. The uneven spread of opportunity pulls workers from the countryside into the informal economy of the cities and towards distant labour markets as circular and seasonal migrants. This mobility loosens the hold of village, kin and caste community, exposing migrants to anonymity, insecure housing and the loss of traditional support networks, even as it opens escape routes from rural stagnation. The migrant informal worker embodies the disembedding that globalization produces.
A further impact is the widening of inequality and social differentiation. The gains of liberalisation have flowed disproportionately to the skilled, the educated and those in the new service economy, while informal workers have seen their relative position stagnate or decline. This deepens the divide between a globally connected middle class and a vast, precarious working population, sharpening perceptions of relative deprivation.
The picture is not wholly negative. Globalization has also opened new opportunities for some informal workers — access to wider markets for artisans and small producers, the spread of mobile telephony and digital payments that ease commerce, and niche demand for services and crafts. The rise of platform and gig work offers flexible earnings to many, even as it reproduces the classic informal condition of no security and no benefits. Self-help groups and micro-enterprise have allowed some, particularly women, to improve their standing.
On balance, the sociological verdict is that globalization has integrated informal workers into wider circuits of production and exchange while leaving them insecure and unprotected. It has generated work but not security, connection but not protection, some mobility but persistent vulnerability. The central policy challenge it exposes is the extension of social security, portable benefits and legal recognition to the informal workforce, so that participation in a globalized economy is not purchased at the cost of chronic precarity.
Examiner's perspective
The examiner rewards candidates who keep the informal worker at the centre and read the impact sociologically — in terms of security, gender, migration, community and inequality — rather than reciting macroeconomic effects of liberalisation.
Strong scripts organise the discussion into distinct themes and support each with the Indian experience, deploying Breman on the informalisation of labour and Standing's precariat to lend analytical weight. Balance is essential: the best answers register the genuine new opportunities of market access, mobile connectivity and gig work alongside the dominant story of insecurity and exploitation.
A first-class answer closes with a measured judgement — integration without protection — and points to the extension of social security as the key implication, avoiding both uncritical celebration and blanket condemnation of globalization.